NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is the text of my proposal:

Title: Intellectual Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

OBSERVING that there are many different beings of various intellectual capacities.

NOTING that discrimination on the basis of intellectual capacity is "just plain mean".

RESOLVES that something be done about this atrocity.

SUGGESTS that these two measures be taken:

The United Nations shall RECOGNIZE the following:

1.) Every person has the right to be of a high or low intellectual capacity, whether self-imposed or inherited.

2.) No person has the right to discriminate against a person of high or low intellectual capacity solely on the basis of said capacity.


Approvals: 1 (The Jannelandia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 19 2004

You seem to have a pretty firm grasp of the conventions of resolution writing. I like that. You have a pretty decent topic and stance on this topic. I like that. The one thing I don't like, is the "RESOLVED" line.

Some will say this is useless and just wastes space. If you have to resubmit, you might want to consider splicing together that line and the next. You sould stick with this idea.

Good luck!

Whoa, just read the hand-over-of-powers thing, sorry. Of course you have a firm grasp of UN conventions. Geez, I didn't realize who this nation was affiliated with.

To reinforce what we said earlier, Powerhungry Chipmunks does like tha idea of this proposal. Whether this draft goes through or not, We'll support it.

OOC: Plus, with the number of school-aged users in NS, you'll probably get much support from them, as well.

Again, Good Luck!

I have a minor fault with the application of this proposal.

1. Does that mean that if a low intellegence person were placed in special education, that he/she would have the right to expect placement in classes deemed regular or honors, if they so wish, and without regard to the hardship placed on the teacher and other students?

2. Will private organizations, such as Mensa, be required to admit persons with less than expected IQ scores?

3. Will employers have the right to deny employment to someone who is less qualified for a position due to their mental capacity?

4. Will companies of certain sizing be required to follow minimal placement standards (ie: affirmative action, quotas) to ensure that lesser intelligent persons are properly promoted?

5. Would you like to be operated on someone who barely passed their MCATs, due to their intelligence 'deficiency'?

In these practical applications, I feel that your proposal does too much to protect the individual rights without thought to the overall rights/safety of the public. Someone with an IQ of 70 is considered borderline. They are often highly functioning in their own lives, but do not do well when taken out of a familiar element. Based on this proposal, this person could not be denied entry to medical school, could seek assistance in order to pass his/her classes (because we all know the MCATs are biased), graduate, be allowed residency, and practice medicine. But I dont think it is a good idea to place a scalpel in the hands of a borderline retarded person, in the name of human rights.

I have a minor fault with the application of this proposal.

1. Does that mean that if a low intellegence person were placed in special education, that he/she would have the right to expect placement in classes deemed regular or honors, if they so wish, and without regard to the hardship placed on the teacher and other students?

2. Will private organizations, such as Mensa, be required to admit persons with less than expected IQ scores?

3. Will employers have the right to deny employment to someone who is less qualified for a position due to their mental capacity?

4. Will companies of certain sizing be required to follow minimal placement standards (ie: affirmative action, quotas) to ensure that lesser intelligent persons are properly promoted?

5. Would you like to be operated on someone who barely passed their MCATs, due to their intelligence 'deficiency'?

In these practical applications, I feel that your proposal does too much to protect the individual rights without thought to the overall rights/safety of the public. Someone with an IQ of 70 is considered borderline. They are often highly functioning in their own lives, but do not do well when taken out of a familiar element. Based on this proposal, this person could not be denied entry to medical school, could seek assistance in order to pass his/her classes (because we all know the MCATs are biased), graduate, be allowed residency, and practice medicine. But I dont think it is a good idea to place a scalpel in the hands of a borderline retarded person, in the name of human rights.

Good point, sir! With all of those imminently practical and reasonable concerns, you may be asking yourself:

"Is there a loophole here that allows nations to get away with completely defying the spirit of this resolution while obeying the letter of it?"

The answer is a resounding yes. There are two loopholes in fact.

Loophole One: Because I...err...neglected ;) to define 'intellectual capacity' for the purpose of this resolution, the more ingenuous national governments can simply redefine the term (within their legal context) to mean the same as 'spiritual aura' or some equally useless term, which would nullify the effect of the resolution.

(This next one solves your problem more directly.)

Loophole Two:

The resolution does not say:

2.) No person has the right to discriminate against a person of high or low intellectual capacity on the basis of said capacity or it's affects on their performance in all areas of life.

Scenario for Does Not Say: I can't fire people solely because I think they're dumb. I can't fire people because of the fact that their intellectual capacity makes them dangerous in a certain position.

The resolution does say: (Note the bolded word.)

2.) No person has the right to discriminate against a person of high or low intellectual capacity solely on the basis of said capacity.

Scenario for Does Say: I can't fire people solely because I think they're dumb. I can fire people because of the fact that their intellectual capacity makes them dangerous in a certain position.



In conclusion, I will say that I always leave a door open for national sovereignty, so never fear!